What is with all of these states talking secession? 12 States have people who submitted the request according to a report I read yesterday. The government says they need to have 25K signatures per state before it will take action.

I see today that Perry was speaking about it, but I didn't read it. Texas has the worlds 15th largest economy, and could stand on it's own if it were able to seceed.

Yes it's crazy talk from disgruntled citizens, but we haven't even entered Obama's second four years and this country appears to be struggling to come apart at the seams. Bill Krystal said it best, "elections have consequences."

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

November 13th, 2012, 8:54 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

LionsFan4Life wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

WarEr4Christ wrote:

Since someone had mentioned the Stock Market here I wanted to ask if this seems peculiar.

Scott Walker gets re-elected for the second time and the next day the SE has a HUGE increase.

In the last 3 weeks, BO has been re-elected and the SE is reportedly down 1000 points.

It seems that the market responded with confidence when Walker got his victory, because of what his administration brings to the table, and how tough choices have taken a State that was in the Red, and Systematically put it back in the black.

I think as a country we missed a TREMENDOUS opportunity, as all of these companies, (ie the 1%) who are sitting on that cash, are now not going to invest it. I think the example of Walker would have skyrocketed the SE out of response to a Romney victory, and now that the realization of more crap, and regulation from this administration has demoralized the engines or our economy. But we'll never know now, because we have four more years (maybe) of the status quo.

If Romney would have won, the stock market would have risen 500+ points. Once Obamacare was systematically dismantled it would have gone up even more. If the Bush tax cuts were made permanent it would have gone up even more. I do think it will recover through the holiday season, but after the seasonal hiring subsides I think you're going to see a big crash as the unemployment and jobless #s continue to get worse. You'll really see it tank if the Dems and Reps can't agree to at least extend the middle class tax breaks.

IMO.. above everything else the tax breaks to the Middle Class need to be there till the economy recovers.

I agree. It's going to be spun that the Reps are "obstructing" or "holding the Middle Class hostage," if they don't give Obama everything he wants, but IMO the Dems will be stupid to push the issue.

Since someone had mentioned the Stock Market here I wanted to ask if this seems peculiar.

Scott Walker gets re-elected for the second time and the next day the SE has a HUGE increase.

In the last 3 weeks, BO has been re-elected and the SE is reportedly down 1000 points.

It seems that the market responded with confidence when Walker got his victory, because of what his administration brings to the table, and how tough choices have taken a State that was in the Red, and Systematically put it back in the black.

I think as a country we missed a TREMENDOUS opportunity, as all of these companies, (ie the 1%) who are sitting on that cash, are now not going to invest it. I think the example of Walker would have skyrocketed the SE out of response to a Romney victory, and now that the realization of more crap, and regulation from this administration has demoralized the engines or our economy. But we'll never know now, because we have four more years (maybe) of the status quo.

And the stock market has also gone up dramatically since Obama has been president. Here's a chart of the Dow since Obama was elected:

It's irrelevant. Also, one governor's election doesn't impact the stock market. It doesn't work like that. The reason the market is going down so much right now is because of the looming fiscal cliff. That is the single biggest thing impacting this. Now, that includes Obamacare taxes, so that is part of it. But even if Romney had been elected, nothing would change before the fiscal cliff. It all goes into effect prior to the inauguration, so regardless of who won the election, the country would still be facing the same fiscal issues.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (and keep saying it hoping that someday you will actually do it): try doing a little research before you post here. It will give you a lot more credibility if you stop posting things that are blatantly untrue.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

On a loan, generally the loaner ends up taking back more money than originally borrowed. In this instance GM shares are at $25/share. For the govt to make money off this and for it be classified as a "loan" under the definition of loan in most circumstances GM stock would need to be sold at over $50/share. The Dow has also gone up since the bailout so relatively the numbers are even worse than I ve listed above. WHile you may not think he is socializing that segment of the economy he is at least heavily regulating it - via a very strict EPA, continuing to advocate union rights, and now with the heavy burden that will be Obamacare which we will get to.

The main problem with the Obamacare is that it ignores the simplest denominator needed to have successful health care reform. Any health care reform must reduce the cost to PROVIDE the care. Obamacare does not do this, where implemented in Massachussetts "Romneycare" which is small scale "Obamacare" has led to increase in costs by 15% compared to the rest of the US. Its plan for Medicare is to reimburse less by 23% even thought the cost to your doctor of taking care of you is increasing. So your doctor to survive will have to cut his costs somehow - maybe by orderring less tests, imaging, etc only that wont work because there is no malpractice reform in Obamacare and the practice of defensive medicine will have to continue. So while you say that it doesnt tell doctors what treatments they can use it does give the govt power to tell them what treatments they will be paid for. It already does that, Obama just increased its power to do so. Much of the medicare cuts then are spent to expand the number of people qualifying for Medicaid. Close to 20% of people will qualify for Medicaid in Obamacare, surely thats a number that will rise. For those not qualifying for govt care, it will increase your premiums and deductibles to your insurance companies bc it tells an insurance company that they cant turn anyone away or discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. Thats an analogy not unlike forcing a car insurance company to insure a wrecked car or insuring a high risk sports car for the same amount as a minivan. Finally, there are no limits as to which direction or to what degree Obamacare can expand. There is no doubt that the ultimate goal is for this to become a single payer system. A system where the payer makes the rules. That is SOCIALIZED medicine.

You made mention of healthcare equipment, pharmaceuticals, etc. Obamacare does not affect them. I wonder if it knows what a disproportionate amount of health care dollars go to them in the USA as compared to Europe. Why does it cost so much less for an MRI in Europe? Why does the same orthopaedic implant cost 3-5x less in Europe? You would think if it was about fairness and decreasing costs, those issues would be addressed first.

Would you want to go through 7-11 years of additional training AFTER college to go into that field? Do you think the best will go into medicine in the coming years? Do you know that there is already an impending physician shortage even before Obamacare? Whatever denial you have about this will likely end when the quality of your care noticably and inevitably declines. Heck you can even go to a County or VA hospital to check out what govt care is like if you dont believe me.

You are so angry at the republican party that you only see things as Republican vs Democrat but yet you dont see how far to the left this President is. He is extremely intelligent and a great speaker and thats enough to sway people that dont actually think about his ideas. Yesterday when discussing the fiscal cliff he stated that he wasnt going to let "teachers and students pay for this alone," a propaganda statement made to play on emotions. It sounded great but when the top 1% of earners pay 40% of the countries taxes, pay 30% of charitable contributions have more advanced degrees, worked longer hours, invest almost all the money that helps businesses and the economy grow and took on more debt/risk when they were younger how can anyone not just laugh in Obama s face? What he really said was - we re going to force the successful to carry us alone just like they always have but we need more now. Guess it doesnt sound as good and makes the rest of us just look greedy and lazy.

Another thing I dont understand about Obama is why in this economy, when he openly says that more tax revenue is needed would he increase the investment tax? History has shown that when this tax rate goes up its revenue goes down and vice versa. Now back to his tax plan - continue the Bush tax cuts for middle class but for 390k and above there will be an increase. Raises trillions less than just reverting to the Clinton tax plan. That makes me really wonder if Obama s plan is to raise revenue like he says it is. I can understand someone saying that taxing the middle class more would hurt the economy but if he wanted to help the economy he wouldnt have increased the investment tax. The two things when occurring together dont make sense unless Obama s real plan isnt to increase revenue or promote the economy but rather to restructure society. Push everyone towards the middle financially.

Anyway I do agree with the underlying sentiment in your last paragraph that the Republican Party lost this election because of social issues. Gay rights, abortion, race and immigration issues, etc. Even if some people viewed the economy as a bigger problem, the GOP stance on those issues makes them look outdated, out of touch, insensitive, etc and I can understand why voters would not trust them.

Lots to respond to here but instead of going point by point I'll just say this (as others have already said a lot):

I'm not angry at the Republican party. I don't personally care much about them. Not the Democrats. They both suck. My main point was that calling Obama a socialist is factually incorrect. Look again at the definition of socialism, and tell me where any of that has happened. I already went through it, and it hasn't. It simply hasn't happened, therefore he is not a socialist.

That said, I do not like Obama. I think he lacks leadership skills, and his fiscal policies are wrong-headed. I do not agree with him, nor do I support him. But, that doesn't mean I will sit back and listen as others distort and tell lies. I do this for both sides. I defend truth, not political parties.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

November 13th, 2012, 10:16 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

TdjI must say you have a knack for stretching my patience. I guess I will follow Winston Churchill's lead and say in response to your comment. "If I respected the man then his comments would matter. So if you'll kindly take the time to climb down off your high horse and quit drinking your holier than thou kool aid you see that I asked whether anyone thought it was strange that the markets reactedafter the walker reelection. So much so that major conservative talking heads were discussing it. Now obama is re elected and the market has dropped 1000 points. At no time did I state there was a cause nor affect for such things. I asked others opinions. As for the research request ihave to chuckle at you. Ive posted research on certain subjects and had them called straw men and supposedly debunked by one of your nerd herd buddies. There is an interesting quote that ill try to find for you that states " facts can conceal the truth." (Paraphrased)

So if belittling me is your form of lionbacker no_adds have at it because I never ceased to be amazed at how brave people are from behind a keyboard. So you go boy, show us your best HP Rambo at my expense.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

November 13th, 2012, 11:33 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

And from now on and with your approval I will pm you all of my responses seeking your permission to post them before I do seeing as how you are now telling me I must do research in order to ask questions or post observations. Talk about regulations.....

And from now on and with your approval I will pm you all of my responses seeking your permission to post them before I do seeing as how you are now telling me I must do research in order to ask questions or post observations. Talk about regulations.....

I wasn't trying to belittle, so I apologize if that's how it came across. All I was trying to do was help. I've posted things before without researching them and felt like an idiot afterwards, so my intent was to try to help. Sorry.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

November 14th, 2012, 12:09 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

TDJ,

Actually it is I who need to apologize, I responded more harshly than what I'd intended. I read your response late last night, and after a long day of pulling carpet, fatigue got the better of me. So I apologize for the barbed comments.

You are correct in the feeling like an idiot after posting something that wasn't true, been there a few times as we know. But what I was trying to bring to light was a market response that occurred after Walker, and then the current market response after the Obama re-election. I was wondering if we could see a "pattern" because our industry engines appeared to respond in favor of a man who brought about significant change in his state for the better of all the people, and his policies rescued them. Now flip that over and see how the threat of more regulations, and Obamacare have removed the hope from said engines, and we haven't even begun to see the fallout yet.

You know I wonder if I tend to see things differently. You and others see facts, and I see patterns, if that makes sense. I say this becuase I saw the Walker thing, and now the current SE drop, and then couple that with the business owner in Vegas who fired 22 of his people, and it all seems to be apart of the same puzzle.

Troll sly? That only proves that you Democrats/Socialists/Communists have to lie to get your point across.

Nah, it just proves that you've turned into a sad, bitter caricature who isn't worth engaging with other than to get lolz out of your bitterness. It's fun

Good to see you back, though.

November 14th, 2012, 12:40 pm

frok

Varsity Captain

Joined: August 9th, 2004, 1:51 amPosts: 304Location: kalamazoo,mi

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

The owner of the company I work for said before the election if Obama wins again she would not expand the business more. There were plans in the talking stages of another 200 + jobs within the next 2 years now.......who knows.

Also does every know that many companies will now cut hours back on employees...down to less than 30/wk so they will not have to provide health benefits. At least I believe that number of hours an employee can work and the company not have to provide benefits.

I could be incorrect on the health benefit thing, I may not have the best understanding of Obama care.

Frok

_________________I feel more like I do now than when I first got here.

November 14th, 2012, 8:29 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

Stallion wrote:

m2karateman wrote:

People who voted for Romney did so because it was what they felt was best for the American people as a whole.

That sounds like socialism to me.

No, forcing a healthcare "solution" on a large group of people who don't want it is socialism.

Voting for someone because that candidate seems to want to do for the country as a whole, and not for certain portions of the country, is called sensible.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

November 15th, 2012, 10:09 am

thelomasbrowns

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: August 24th, 2010, 9:54 pmPosts: 2871

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

frok wrote:

The owner of the company I work for said before the election if Obama wins again she would not expand the business more. There were plans in the talking stages of another 200 + jobs within the next 2 years now.......who knows.

Also does every know that many companies will now cut hours back on employees...down to less than 30/wk so they will not have to provide health benefits. At least I believe that number of hours an employee can work and the company not have to provide benefits.

I could be incorrect on the health benefit thing, I may not have the best understanding of Obama care.

frok

_________________"Good teams don't worry about a whole lot of stuff. They travel, they play, they win. And it doesn't matter where they go, what the time block is, all those kinds of things. They never seem to bother teams that play well, and we want to be one of those teams." -Jim Caldwell

November 15th, 2012, 4:09 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

frok wrote:

The owner of the company I work for said before the election if Obama wins again she would not expand the business more. There were plans in the talking stages of another 200 + jobs within the next 2 years now.......who knows

Something I'm a bit curious about when I hear stuff like this. One would think that a company would consider expanding if the demand or need is there, right? Likewise if the demand / need wasn't enough, they would have to consider contracting / cutting back. That being said, can someone explain to why a different resident of the White House, who most consider to be a figure head as Congress has the real power, would have any effect on demand or need for a company?

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

November 15th, 2012, 4:14 pm

regularjoe12

Def. Coordinator – Teryl Austin

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4212Location: Davison Mi

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

TheRealWags wrote:

frok wrote:

The owner of the company I work for said before the election if Obama wins again she would not expand the business more. There were plans in the talking stages of another 200 + jobs within the next 2 years now.......who knows

Something I'm a bit curious about when I hear stuff like this. One would think that a company would consider expanding if the demand or need is there, right? Likewise if the demand / need wasn't enough, they would have to consider contracting / cutting back. That being said, can someone explain to why a different resident of the White House, who most consider to be a figure head as Congress has the real power, would have any effect on demand or need for a company?

I assume he is talking about the increased cost that having 200+ more full time employement plus benefits would entail....but i cant be sure cuz if the company is that big, they probably already offer health insurance....so im a little confused as well.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

November 15th, 2012, 4:21 pm

thelomasbrowns

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: August 24th, 2010, 9:54 pmPosts: 2871

Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney

TheRealWags wrote:

frok wrote:

The owner of the company I work for said before the election if Obama wins again she would not expand the business more. There were plans in the talking stages of another 200 + jobs within the next 2 years now.......who knows

Something I'm a bit curious about when I hear stuff like this. One would think that a company would consider expanding if the demand or need is there, right? Likewise if the demand / need wasn't enough, they would have to consider contracting / cutting back. That being said, can someone explain to why a different resident of the White House, who most consider to be a figure head as Congress has the real power, would have any effect on demand or need for a company?

Bill Kristol said in 1993 that Republicans had to defeat Clinton's healthcare plan not because it was disastrous, but because once it was in place, people would like it too much and vote for Democrats. Romneycare is very popular in Massachusetts.

The Democrats made a political blunder when they scheduled the most obvious benefits of the health care plan to phase in in 2014, and already half the country wants to keep it. Once it's fully implemented, expect that to rise to 75% or higher. That's why Republicans and their Chamber of Commerce buddies are so scared.

_________________"Good teams don't worry about a whole lot of stuff. They travel, they play, they win. And it doesn't matter where they go, what the time block is, all those kinds of things. They never seem to bother teams that play well, and we want to be one of those teams." -Jim Caldwell